BuzzerBeater Forums

Not a fan of that idea. We shouldn't be dictating or homogenising how to play this game to such a large extent, and that's why I'm suspect about this new boycott rule and the rising salary floors also. What was so wrong about the strategy of tanking a season for money and a good draft pick?

There is already a benefit to being strong over the course of the season rather than just the play-offs, and that is the very significant advantage of HCA. All I'm saying is that by adding more teams but keeping the play-offs to eight, you're demanding more regular season success from potential champions.

For 1 and 2, this argument could also be made for any team that is significantly weaker than the league average. And there will always be weaker teams in a league even if they aren't actually tanking, that's just the nature of the game.

3 and 4 are valid points, but for 3, you're only truly 'safe' if there's at least 3 tanking/inactive/weak teams in your conference, and for 4, do keep in mind that tanking does also exist in real life leagues that carry a benefit to doing so (see; the 76ers and the process).

Besides, tanking is still going to be a thing. It's just that now the tankers will sit on a salary floor roster and be smart enough to crunch time one game that they can win whenever they need to avoid the boycott, ending on a 3-19 or 4-18 record. But I digress...

Let's bring the main topic of discussion back to the potential league formats I have put forward. The primary benefit to each system that I see is;

18 teams: You can make the conversion without changing any other aspects of Buzzerbeater's seasonal schedule.

20 teams: Most teams have an aforementioned 'boring week' when they're out of the cup on all-star week and have to wait 7 days between league games. This set-up removes that.

24 teams: This set-up also removes that 7 day break, and makes room for a 1-3-9-27 league pyramid without relegating too many lower level teams unfairly.

If you're liking my ideas, please also consider the alternate BuzzerBeater's Best format that I suggested last year. It consists of;

- A qualifying round, where the weakest teams (based on world ranking and/or method of making the B3) have to play a single neutral venue game against each other to make the final 128 team cut.

- A group stage with 32 groups of 4 teams each playing a home and away round-robin, for a total of 6 games. The top two teams in each group then advance to the round of 64, with group winners gaining home court advantage and playing against group runner-ups. After this, the tournament would revert to the 32 team neutral venue knock-out that we have now.

The point is to get rid of the random 'doom draws' that some teams get in the 'group play' stage. A bit of bad luck can easily turn those four away games into a nearly impossible road to the round of 32, even if you otherwise have one of the best teams in the world. You could also make the group stage 8 teams in a single round robin (all neutral games, or 3 home, 3 away, 1 neutral) and remove the round of 64, or you can just make the 8 games in the existing 'group play' format neutral venue games.

Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 12/19/2016 6:02:37 AM

what the new system is going to do is naturally eliminate the catbird's seat.

this is all well and good as the drive to five has been steering the plane many a season on this game.

that being said I'm actually in favor of contraction as opposed to expansion 12 team leagues double round-robin top 4 go to the playoffs 5-6 sit. 7-10 battle. Bottom two pack up.


The cup needs to be addressed because the economic inequity which stems from that definitely has a lot to do with the economic imbalance. that buzzer beater has issues with

The cup needs to be a two-phase event on all levels in that there should be a group and then a knockout stage I think we're all mature enough to handle that. All cup matches should be neutral court because by god the locals want to see something different in their arena. Income should be a 50-50 split

speaking of which in league I think there should be Revenue sharing of the gate. not on a 50/50 split on you but I don't think the old school 2/3 vs 1/3 split is out of line.


In the end we all want to see the same thing... upward mobility.


Last edited by Coach Lambini at 12/20/2016 7:20:03 PM

Affinity is a good idea, though I wonder if there is a simpler solution coding wise. For example, we could just make the post-transfer GS penalty longer, or install a trade deadline.

Also, I would still argue that this buy-up problem would be greatly reduced if my proposal is implemented. Adding more teams into the league whilst still keeping an 8 team play-off would make it more difficult relatively speaking to get in, especially in the 20 or 24 team formats I drew up.

Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 1/26/2017 5:04:06 AM